Report and Recommendations - Scottish Government

interview. That is the general position that requires to be secured and itscontinuance, in so far as contained in the amendments to the 1995 Actintroduced by the 2010 Act, must follow. This is so even if Article 6 does notrequire this for the suspect who is not under any compulsion to remain at thepolice station. The problems identified by the Thomson Committee relative to“helping the police with their enquiries” could re-appear were the position tobe otherwise. It follows, however, from Dayanan and the draft EU Directivethat the legislation requires amendment to permit all arrested or detainedsuspects access to a lawyer, even if no questioning is to take place.6.1.18 It does not seem to be a necessary requirement that the police actually secureaccess by a suspect to a lawyer when the suspect is not in a police station.After all, a suspect in that situation is at liberty and free to obtain such adviceas he/she wishes in any event. He/she will have been cautioned that he/sheneed not answer any questions as soon as he/she becomes a suspect. Anyinterviews with a suspect outwith a police station will be subject to the overallrequirement of Article 6 fairness. If the actions of the police are seen as anattempt to circumvent the right of access to a lawyer or the procedures for therecording of the interview in the police station, the prospects of the answers topolice questioning being ruled inadmissible will, no doubt, increase. It is clear,however, that, if a suspect is arrested or otherwise has his/her liberty ofmovement curtailed, he/she must be afforded the right of access to a lawyerprior to being questioned, if the answers are to be used as evidence.150